Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (John Hutton) has made the following Statement.
	I am publishing today the Opportunity for all—Eighth Annual Report 2006 (CM 6915-i and CM 6915-ii) of the Department for Work and Pensions. It will provide a progress update on the department's seventh annual report published in October 2005 (Cm 6673). The report sets out our strategy for tackling poverty and social exclusion, and reports on the indicators used to monitor progress. Copies have been placed in the Library.
	We are committed to achieving a fairer, more inclusive society where nobody is held back by disadvantage or lack of opportunity. I am pleased to report that significant and sustained progress has been made on a range of our indicators. Forty of our 59 indicators now show an improving trend over time.
	Overall, there are now 700,000 fewer children living in relative low income than in 1998-99 (before housing costs) and around 440,000 fewer children in households where no one works. There are 2.5 million more people in work, with unemployment the lowest for 30 years. Ethnic minority groups and disabled people have seen improvements in their employment rates since last year.
	One million fewer people of state pension age are in relative low income and more than 2 million fewer are in absolute low income compared with 1997.
	This year's Opportunity for all report consists of two documents—our strategy and the indicators document. The strategy document presents an overview in the "life-cycle" approach, clearly setting out our progress to date. It draws on relevant departmental five-year strategies and other key documents, setting out how we will achieve both our short and longer term targets. A chapter on child poverty sets out the cross-government strategy which will deliver on our aim to halve and eradicate child poverty and to ensure that all children have the best start in life. It outlines how many, and which, children experience poverty, and its consequences. It describes the progress that has been made so far to address child poverty.
	The indicators document provides an important annual audit that monitors the progress of the Government's strategy to tackle poverty and social exclusion. These reflect the multidimensional nature of poverty and social exclusion at different stages in people's lives, including health, education, housing, income and financial well-being.
	There is, of course, still more to do. Poverty and social exclusion are deep-rooted problems that have built up over many years. Tackling the root causes of poverty takes time as well as commitment and investment. It also requires a partnership across all sectors of society which recognises that rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. However, this report shows that we are now starting to see real signs of equally deep-rooted and lasting change that will help individuals and communities take control of their lives and break the intergenerational cycle of poverty and deprivation.

Lord Drayson: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Derek Twigg) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The Ministry of Defence (MoD) welcomes the court's judgment that the scheme's criteria do not directly discriminate on the grounds of race and that it was legitimate to limit payments to those with a close link to the United Kingdom.
	The MoD accepts the court's finding that theway the Government chose to define that close link—introducing the "birthlink" criteria—involved unjustified indirect discrimination against those of non-United Kingdom national origins. We will not be seeking leave to appeal.
	The purpose of the birthlink criteria was to provide an administratively manageable way of paying more British subjects, not fewer. It wasnever the MoD's intention to discriminate against Mrs Elias or anyone else on grounds of race. Nonetheless, in the light of the court's judgment, which the MoD accepts, the department recognises the hurt unintentionally caused to Mrs Elias personally and will pay her the compensation that the court ordered, plus interest. Mrs Elias had already received an ex gratia payment of £10,000 under the scheme pursuant to changes to the scheme's eligibility criteria that were announced in March of this year. Those changes meant that those who have resided in the UK for at least 20 years between the end of the Second World War and November 2000, when the scheme was introduced, qualify for a payment.
	Civilian claims submitted after the High Court judgment on 7 July 2005 have been, and will continue to be, decided only on the basis of the other, residence-based, criteria, based either on normal residence in the United Kingdom before the war and return to United Kingdom shortly afterwards, or at least 20 years' residence in the United Kingdom between 1945 and November 2000.